What do you think of our current President?

[Rook58]

I agree that it would be wrong to just bail out on Iraq at this point. First, because we do have an obligation to help the people there try to rebuild their country, and secondly because it would be bad geopolitical strategy. But I believe a more effective way would be to first, shift our emphasis from hunting insurgents and accruing body count (that never works as a counterinsurgency strategy) to undermining their support both by doing highly visible things to improve people's lives and by protecting ordinary Iraqis from the multiple violent factions. A lot more of our presence there should be in the form of combat engineers building things, humanitarian missions providing roving medical and dental assistance teams, and things like that, with the combat side looking more like the Combined Action Platoon program the Marine Corps was running pretty successfully in Vietnam until Westmoreland pulled the plug on it because it was too low-key for him. Bing West's book The Village gives an excellent description of that program and how it worked in one village where he was assigned.
Our best long-term strategy to defeat terrorism and undermine extremist regimes is to foster the growth of stability and prosperity - a materialistic middle class if you like - in the places where terrorists recruit. That was the reasoning behind the Marshall Plan, and it worked. There will always be people like Bin Laden and the disaffected rich kids that flew planes into buildings for him - they're a lot like the disaffected European rich kids that made up the Baader-Meinhoff gang and other wannabe Red revolutionaries a generation earlier - but if the underlying culture is open, prosperous, and basically a good place to live, the Islamic crazies will find themselves as isolated as the European crazies did. The European pseudocommunist terrorist movement withered on the vine because they didn't really represent anyone and had no base of support, no base to recruit from, and because the West responded with effective, coordinated law enforcement efforts. If we can foster the same kind of basically content middle class based society and culture in the countries of the middle east and the rest of the Islamic world as in Europe, I believe the long-term result will be similar too. It would be expensive in lives and money and take a long time, but in the long run fewer troops (and civilians) would die and less money would be spent.
For less than we've spent in Iraq, we could have provided safe drinking water and immunizations for every child on the planet. How much would that have done to make us friends, undermine the propaganda of Bin Laden and his kind, and make America safer?
The biggest part of sound security lies not in having the toughest military, although we do need strong defense, but in having as many friends and as few enemies as possible. The U.S. was so popular after World War II not because everyone was scared of our muscle but because they were grateful for what we'd done for them, both our allies we'd helped achieve freedom and our former enemies we'd helped rebuild themselves as free societies.

[renrich]

Today, serving in the US military is a profession. Why should one be able to serve for 3 years and then get a free college education. One gets paid while serving and has many benefits. It is totally different than during WW2, Korea, Viet Nam, when we had the draft. If one is commanding the US Army, do you think you would be in favor of a program where an EM could serve for three years and then get out and go to college on the tax player's nickel? My thought is that the people advancing the proposed program about college are hoping to destroy the professional army. The US military today is a totally different animal than it was a few years ago. I have a nephew who was considering joining the Navy recently and I was astounded at the process he was having to go through. I applaud the process.

[starling]

i reckon president cheney is ace.he is good.fox news like him.lee.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by renrich

Today, serving in the US military is a profession. Why should one be able to serve for 3 years and then get a free college education. One gets paid while serving and has many benefits. It is totally different than during WW2, Korea, Viet Nam, when we had the draft. If one is commanding the US Army, do you think you would be in favor of a program where an EM could serve for three years and then get out and go to college on the tax player's nickel? My thought is that the people advancing the proposed program about college are hoping to destroy the professional army. The US military today is a totally different animal than it was a few years ago. I have a nephew who was considering joining the Navy recently and I was astounded at the process he was having to go through. I applaud the process.

I think the GI Bill and education benefits are a great thing. I served 6 years in the Army and am currently using my education benefits to do another degree program.

It was part of my contract when I signed up. 6 years and I get $55,000 for education. There is nothing wrong with that and it is a good thing.

It is only a benefit of the job. If a civilian works for a company that gives him education benefits, is that wrong?

[freebird]

Originally Posted by renrich

I believe that Bush and his cohorts had all along the idea that once Iraq was freed of Saddam and a reasonably stable friendly government was installed in Iraq that we would have a secure and welcomed place to base a sizable force for the forseeable future. There was the added benefit of putting a scare into the neighboring Arab countries as in "This could be you." There have been many collateral benefits of the war such as not having to maintain carrier battle groups perpetually in the Gulf and Med. Not having to patrol the no fly zones. Perhaps the most useful benefit is that we now have part of our army well trained and experienced in urban warfare as well as a notion about which of our equipment works and which does not. OJT, so to speak.

A 'reasonanbly stable, non-hostile, cooperative Iraq was totally achievable.

the original Bush plan of a stable, democratic, friendly Iraq was grossly over-optimistic, and is part of why things are bogged down.

Originally Posted by renrich

I don't understand what you are saying about Biden's plan. How can we maintain troops in a country that has no government without taking on the role of occupiers. We did not do that in Germany or Japan except initially.

There will be a government, just not a divisive, ineffective central government

The idea was to set up a loose federal system in Iraq, similar to the US system, where each state has the primary responsibility for basic services, food, health & security {police}. The idea was to set up separate states for the Sunnis & Shi'ítes, just like has already been very successfully done for the Kurds.

The plan would go something like this. You find the local Shiite {or Sunni} power group {warlord, cleric or whatever}, as long as they do not have a really nasty record. You tell this "provincial governor", {for example Sistani or Sadr}, we are putting you in charge of this area, we expect you to set up some kind of local council, provide basic services for the people, and proper security. Terrorists can be dealt with harshly, but expect to give basic legal rights to the population.

The US will also be setting up his Sunni opposite in a similar situation. The US will be very clear that as long as the provincial government is cooperative and does not abuse the citizens, then weapons & money to rebuild will be provided. The provincial governor would know that if they get out of control, the US will come and wipe out the leadership, or just stop supplying them with weapons for the police/militia. {which would leave them vulnerable to attack from the Sunni militia or from rivals in their own base}.

The US would also secure the rights for 100 year lease on 3 bases, in the north, south, & west. The primary mission for the US soldiers in these bases would be to hunt down Al Queda training bases, and to secure a tight control on Iraq's borders, to prevent Iran from sending in weapons, or de-stabilizing the country. The US would also decide what % of the oil revenue would go to each province.

The positve aspect of the plan is that both Shiite & Sunni would see it to be advantageous to cooperate with the US, to keep aid flowing, and to prevent them from helping out their Sunni {Shiite} rivals. Since they have the primary responsibility for re-building & security, it is in their interests to prevent any attacks on power/water/hospital projects etc.

Originally Posted by renrich

As far as the Republican candidates are concerned, the Repubs wound up nominating the right candidate as far as electability is concerned. The other candidates, other than possibly Romney, did not have a ghost of a chance to be elected. One can say that the process worked. Remember, politics is the art of the possible.

I agree that Mcain is the best chance at this point.

[renrich]

Chris, now the program you are into makes sense. A six year obligation and then 55 K for education gives enough time for you to become a real asset to the military and then if you choose get a reasonable amount to get a college education. I believe the program the dems are now proposing is a college education after 3 years active duty. As many technical jobs as there are in the military today, that doesn't make sense. I am in favor of the program you are in and don't see why it should not suffice today.

[renrich]

I would like to address the current situation as far as Bush and the Iraq war. Firstly, most of the criticism from the dems comes from members of congress who voted for the invasion of Iraq. Yes, I know that they say Bush lied. Well, they had access to the same intelligence that he and Tony Blair had. Not only that but the previous president, Clinton, stated often that Saddam had WMDs and was trying to build more. He also stated that removal of Saddam was a goal. A lie is when one makes a statement that he knows to be false. Would someone explain why two smart pols like Bush and Blair would lie about WMDs when they know their lie will be exposed if we invade. Please recall, right after 9-11, when Bush's approval was over 90%, the dems were reported to be bemoaning the fact that the attack did not take place before Bush became president so Clinton could make his mark in history. Of course when the going became sticky, after they had voted for the measures taken, the dems say,"oh boy, now we can really stick it to Bush and the Repubs." What hippocrites they are. They have, along with the media given aid and comfort to the enemy and undoubtedly prolonged the war. All because they want power. They are despicable. As far as the conduct of the war: George Washington was continually criticised for his generalship during the war because he won few battles and was always retreating. Lincoln made appointment after appointment to the job of commander of the Army of the Potomac, McDowell, McClellan, Pope, Burnside, Hooker, Meade, all unable to cope with Lee, until finding Grant who managed to get a good portion of his army butchered. FDR continually lied to the American public, saying he would never involve our boys in a war in Europe, all the while contravening US and International law, giving aid to Britain and China and trying to provoke Hitler into declaring war on the US. "In his mouth was peace, in his heart was war." Not only that but he fired Admiral Richardson and replaced him with Kimmel because Richardson claimed that Pearl Harbor was too easily surprised and the Pacific fleet should be based on the West Coast. Not only that but our Pacific Fleet carriers in the first months after PH could not even muster a full squadron of homogeneous fighters per carrier because Wildcats were in short supply. Some went to sea with a mixture of Wildcats and Buffaloes and not even 18 seviceable of those. Yet, all of those men are rated among our greatest presidents. There are only a couple of reasons that Bush has an approval rating, at this stage of the Iraq war of only around 30%. One is that the people polled are died in the wool dems and would criticise Bush if his name was George Washington instead of George Bush and they are upset about gas prices(which Bush has no control over.) The other reason would be that they are ignorant about history and the travails of our other presidents. Or maybe that 70% or so is all of those things.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by renrich

I would like to address the current situation as far as Bush and the Iraq war.

Ren, as I stated before I don't have a problem with them taking out Saddam, but only with the lack of a realistic plan, and the failure to recognise that changes were needed until several years went by and they lost control of Congress.

You mentioned Lincoln, there is a good example. If the strategy is not working then he made changes quickly, not waiting years as things went south {pun intended}. A more recent example is Eisenhower, who had set up a plan for the political control of French N. Africa after Torch. When the plan fell apart because all of the Generals were loyal to the Vichy government, he made a quick decision to scrap the plan for something that would work. There were some that critisized him for using the high ranky Vichy admiral Darlan, {as some would have complained about using ex-Bathist military} but he said later that he did what he felt he had to do, and would face the consequences. Another example is Nimitz, after Tarawa and the high casualties there it was decided to change strategies and bypass the heavily defended islands. In baseball if a pitcher is getting "lit up" you don't have the luxury of giving him a few more innings, just as in war you have to adjust quickly, the dogma of "stay the course" make Bush look out of touch.

If the Republicans can keep the White house and control of at least one house of congress I will give Bush a pass. But it seems like his stubborness over the Iraq war will ensure 4 or 8 years of control by Obama & Pelosi. Some legacy.

[renrich]

Lincoln made decisions based on a known, clear cut situation. His war was a conventional war-find the enemy army and destroy it. The strategy and tactics of the conventional portion of the Iraq war were flawless, in spite of the critics which said we did not have enough troops. Methinks the criticism of the conduct of the war against the insurgency by the Monday morning quarterbacks is all hindsight and doesn't meet my definition of useful or even very thoughful. In previous circumstances, Germany-1918, Italy-1944, Germany-1945 and Japan- 1945, after the surrender of the enemy army, the occupation went fairly smoothly with some exceptions. The occupation of the Philipines after the Spanish American War resulted in a similar insurgency with casualties for the US in excess of those in Iraq but we got through it. Bush has many times cautioned the US that this war against terrorism will be a long drawn out affair. All leaders make mistakes. I could have, in my previous post, go on and on citing examples. If you look at the casualties in the Army of the Potomac after Grant took over, Lincoln's choice of him doesn't look so good. The blockade was working, the South was growing weaker and weaker and their will to fight was dwindling. Another stategy could have been superior. Churchill made numerous mistakes. He was the proponent for the invasion of Italy which many "experts" count as a mistake. Gallipoli was another misstep on his part. As you recall, Winston and his party were dismissed after the war in favor of rampant socialism. He still is counted as a great leader. The question you and the other critics of Bush should be asking yourself is where would the US and the western democracies be today if the US had elected "a less stubborn" president such as Gore or perhaps similar to Clinton.

[Haztoys]

Originally Posted by Rook58

But I believe a more effective way would be to first, shift our emphasis from hunting insurgents and accruing body count (that never works as a counterinsurgency strategy) to undermining their support both by doing highly visible things to improve people's lives and by protecting ordinary Iraqis from the multiple violent factions. A lot more of our presence there should be in the form of combat engineers building things, humanitarian missions providing roving medical and dental assistance teams, .

We are doing just that ...But the Dem ,,Liberal News never brings it up...My home work says it is getting better...I have also come to see that the Lib News has not been saying much about the war...Not as many people are being killed so they never bring that up...If the Lib News can't bash Reps and a negative spin on the war they say nothing..When we try to improve lives ...The Lib news says all Bush wants is to make money..

People are a fool if you think at some point in time we would not have to fight these mad bastards in the sand some were...Ether we do it now or are kids do it later..And there has not been an attack in the US scents the war started...And Saddam Hussein was a WoMD in his self by being in power...I say there were WoMD's ...And there sitting in Syria...The middle eastern people are real good at hiding there weapons ...Look at the last battle with Israel and Lebanon...The Israelis realy keep close tabs on what goes on around them..But had no clue at the amount of rockets stashed in the farms of Lebanon ...No clue at all...And to a point Israel got the sh#$t kick out of them..I bet that will not happen again..There's no way the WoMD were not there..The US and the Brits are not that sloppy...

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by freebird

You mentioned Lincoln, there is a good example. If the strategy is not working then he made changes quickly, not waiting years as things went south {pun intended}.

I have heard Lincoln used as an example against Bush for not firing Rumsfield, saying he replaced many generals to find a good one. Interestingly, in spite of all the terrible failures of the North early in the war, Lincoln never fired his Secretary of War (now Defense), Stanton.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I think the GI Bill and education benefits are a great thing. I served 6 years in the Army and am currently using my education benefits to do another degree program.

It was part of my contract when I signed up. 6 years and I get $55,000 for education. There is nothing wrong with that and it is a good thing.

It is only a benefit of the job. If a civilian works for a company that gives him education benefits, is that wrong?

I am a big believer in a strong, volunteer military, and, as such, I am concerned about retention. Business tries to retain people by increasing benefits with time. Giving large benefits after a short time hinders that effort. Three years and a college degree is not much of a return on investment. We had to stay in the AF four (now five) years after pilot training and that was only one year of training (and some use of some expensive aircraft).

So, while I think the GI bill is great, I think some discipline is require to encourage the troops to stay. If we lose too many troops, there will be pressure for a draft and that will cause lots of trouble.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by Rook58

So over 4,000 troops are dead and over 30,000 have been wounded, our equipment base has been depleted, and we've spent over half a trillion dollars, and what we've gotten for it has been a stronger Iran

? So you think that if we had not gone into Iraq, Iran would be friendly and not be trying to develop the A-bomb and not be trying to dominate the middle east?

a stronger Al Qaeda

It is pretty well recognized that Al Qaeda is basically tied up in Afghanistan and is being chased out of Iraq. There has not been a terrorist attack against US people or facilities in five years, a substantial change from the previous years.

greater danger to the Western world

There has been a significant reduction of terrorist attacks since the start of the Iraq war compared to the previous seven years, so this is an incorrect statement.

and less capability to respond to threats from North Korea, China, or anyone else.

We need a bigger military. But if we left Iraq, those countries would know we are weak willed and can be waited out, all to our larger danger.

[Haztoys]

One thing I do know ..."It takes decades to know if presidents and x-wives were good or bad"..They also have to deal with the president before them and what he did or did not do and what he set in motion...So to say Bush is good or bad or even Clinton was good or bad ..Its to soon ...And who was running the House and Senate at the time of said presidents time in office.. Like Bush was doing ok ..Until the House and Senate went Dem ... Theres no way in hell a House and Senate that not in the same party as the President is going to do anything to help the President thats not in there "gang"...And the Dem's that run the House and Senate right now ..Ran there mouths about what they were going to do there "First 100 days" you all remember that ..??..And what did they do...???????????????????............JACK.........! !!!!!

But bust Bush's ball and fight any thing he did...Not that if the tables were turned it would of been better.....

Its just getting to the point that JFK and Nixon can be judged....And "I" feel that these two on how they looked in office and what is coming out now ...Are very different...

Its just not that EZ....

[Rook58]

No, Iran would not be friendly, and would still be trying to develop nukes, but we'd be more capable of fighting a conventional war with them; and I say they're stronger because we've removed the main obstacle to Iran's dominating the region and enabled them to get a foothold in Iraq - if Iraq does end up breaking up into three parts, Iran will pretty much control the Shi'ite part. That will increase their oil resources, their geographical reach and the population base they control. We are also giving them a chance to boost their prestige in the rest of the Islamic world by appearing to be leaders in resisting what the Islamist propagandists are selling as US imperialism.

Al Qaeda has fragmented somewhat into a system of semi-autonomous cells and has activities going on in dozens of countries; they aren't tied down anywhere. And at this point even if we do catch or kill Bin Laden (and I believe strongly we should be doing all we can to do just that - it would be great to see him put on trial in front of the whole world), the thing he has created will carry on. The Taliban, allied with Al Qaeda but a separate entity, has retaken a lot of Afghanistan and is continuing to grow in strength. In some ways they're worse than they were before we almost wiped them out, because when they controlled Afghanistan before they very strongly clamped down on the opium trade, just about eliminating it in that country, and now they're supporting it and using it as a way to raise funds.

As far as the greater danger to the Western world, that's the CIA's analysis, not mine. I presume they have more information and have put more effort and talent into analyzing it than either you or I.

I agree with you that if we leave Iraq - unless we find a good way to do it - North Korea, Iran, China, and other powers will see it as a defeat for us. I have said here that I don't think we should just leave, for both practical political and "doing the right thing" reasons. But we need to drastically change how we're fighting that war. Specifically, we should shift to a much more low-intensity, precision-oriented strategy, using something like the Combined Action Platoon program the Marines ran in Vietnam. It stationed small groups of Marines in Vietnamese villages for long periods of time; they became part of the community. Their corpsman helped the villagers with medical problems. The Marines helped out with various civic projects. They also trained a resident militia unit based in that same village and, with that militia - the Marines taking the lead at first, the militia doing so more as they grew in skill and confidence - they took back the night from the VC and NVA, going out and doing a lot of aggressive patrolling. Bing West's book The Village is one of the best portrayals of that program.
The second thing we should be doing is not only making the military larger, as you rightly said, but changing its makeup and putting fewer people and less resources into high-intensity conventional war systems - attack subs, strategic bombing, etc. - and more into basic ground combat arms, special forces, some new stuff like the Predator drone program, and MOS fields like combat engineers that can both fight combat missions and carry out more civil assistance programs.
In Iraq, we should start putting a lot more into rebuilding, with combat engineers protected by Army and Marine grunts, instead of lapsing back into the body-count mentality that doesn't work in counterinsurgency.
Finally, something like the Phoenix program from the Vietnam war - carefully and precisely managed - is needed, and I hope we're already doing it. This is much more a war for snipers and Seals than for air strikes and artillery.

Concerning the new GI Bill, I hold to my belief that volunteer military or not, it's the right thing to do for three reasons:
1. These young men and women are offering up their lives in service to America, and this is a partial payback for that.
2. It will help recruitment, which is suffering to the point where the Army and Marine Corps have had to lower their standards and accept felons that until this war would not have been allowed to put on the uniform, and it will attract the kind of people we need - bright and ambitious.
3. It will more than pay for itself in the long run, as the people who earn and use the benefits get college educations most of them would otherwise not be able to afford, and as a result earned more money, and paid more in income taxes as well as boosting the economies of their communities. And the beneficiaries of that education will be the bravest and most patriotic of their generation, just the people we want to become our country's leaders as they get older.